This is where I appear to split with many of my lefty friends.

Right now, Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats have a very, very big base problem. Support for both the president and Congress is dwindling not because the country is rebuking their liberal policies, but because the base is starting to turn on them for not being liberal enough. Not only is the entire right voting against the health care reforms, but we find an unlikely unity of Blue Dogs and progressive hero Kucinich in opposing it from the Democratic side.

As an icon of the left, Dennis Kucinich has no right-wing equivalent. For all of the Bush years, there was no ultra neoconservative that refused to support Bush’s policies for not going far enough. There were no Republicans voting against the PATRIOT Act because it wasn’t aggressive enough. No one opposing the huge tax breaks because they were too modest. The Ron Pauls of the GOP opposed Bush-era policies for not being “truly conservative” at times, a far different charge.

Reason being there is no such conservative force like what we have in the progressive sphere. Freepers, FOX, and Rush spent more time defending Bush and the GOP against liberal attacks than they ever did howling that the party’s elected officials were being too soft. When Bush’s major legislation efforts came along, the right was behind him all the way. Efforts to privatize social security were heralded by groups like The Heritage Foundation, in stark contrast with how the Center for American Progress has criticized the health care bills for being too ineffective.

It’s possible that liberal politics are, by their nature, far more ambitious than conservative politics. Liberals are forward thinking, conservatives backward thinking. I don’t say this in a derogatory way, either. Listen to their own rhetoric. The most common cry from conservatives is how liberals have corrupted the country and that we need to go back to a better time, most often in reference to Reagan. From liberals, it’s that we need to move forward in this or that field.

What was the laundry list of expectations for the Bush era? Tax cuts, some conservative judges on the bench, maybe some deregulation, but mostly to put a halt to the liberal takeover. Compare this with the cornucopia of expectations that faced Obama upon his arrival. Aside from rolling back nearly everything Bush did, the liberal base wanted the end of two wars, Krugman-type Keynesian economic liberals wanted stimulus bills at least double in size, gay rights groups wanted DOMA and DADT both repealed, Obama got into some hot water because he wasn’t taking cries for nationally legalized pot seriously, and everyone wanted true single-payer health care. Just for starters. The worst Bush had to deal with was the anti-immigration crowd.

These disparate groups almost ensure that getting any one of those policies to pass is an uphill battle, whereas the modest ideals of tax cuts and deregulation are universal enough to keep all of the right together on any efforts towards those goals. Worse still, as the GOP is largely a pro-corporate party, they rarely (if ever) have to face down an industry backlash against legislation in the way of the current health care bill. Trying to force through such ambitious goals requires overcoming quite a few obstacles.

This leaves even the most ambitious Democrat in a tough bind: water bills down enough to make it through, or pass nothing at all. Get bitched at for folding, or for inaction. Because let’s face it, if it was a five vote margin on the bill that passed, imagine what would have happened in the House had the abortion clause not been in there or if the public option was as full as many of us had hoped.

Unfortunately, that’s the reality of the situation. Republican opposition is a near guarantee, but Democratic support is not (to wit: 39 Dems against the bill, one Gopper for it). As the right wants to stop the liberal takeover, anything with a whiff of progression will have a built-in red blockade, and so the battle becomes making sure the Democrats are in unison, which they often aren’t. Evangelical Democrats aren’t big on the gay rights, most moderate Democrats won’t go for a huge stimulus bill, Blue Dogs are obviously not going for governmental health care.

As such, crafting bills means accepting that a great many bills just aren’t plain going to pass. No amount of Town Halling will change their minds. As true as it is that if the Democrats all voted in unison they’d be unstoppable, the fact of the matter is that Democrats rarely vote in unison unless it’s something like the Franken amendment or against Bush legislation. Full-on repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? Timetable in Iraq? Forget it.

This means we liberals need to ask ourselves how far we’re willing to bend on our convictions for the sake of passing legislation. If we clamp down and say nothing short of exactly what we want is acceptable, then say hello to a few years of total non-action followed by a destructive election. But if we do the opposite and play loose with our ideals then whatever does pass runs the risk of being useless anyway.

Right now, it seems that the left is erring too far on the side of the former. This becomes an issue because it provides incredible ammunition for right-wing pundits to show how “even the left is abandoning this president” as polls show dropping support for Congressional leaders. They’ll strip context out of it to be sure, but it could still prove an issue to the swayable middle, and those are who will decide 2010, 2012, and 2016. Meanwhile, if the left continues to hold up the impossible standard, not only can moderates be swayed away but without base support, the party is dead in the water.

I’m not saying the left should throw up its hands and just accept whatever happens. Far from it. But right now the Democrats are in a lose-lose situation with the liberal base. Either the base is pissed off at watered down bills or pissed off that bills aren’t getting passed. The only third option is for the Dems to introduce the bills exactly as the base wants and watch as they get shut down. The health care debate could have been over a while ago, and not in a good way, if Pelosi or Reid had attempted to introduce a single-payer bill.

Nor am I saying that anger at watered down bills is bad, but it’s important to get our targets right. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama? Not necessarily. The Democrats that are standing in the way of the bills’ passing? Definitely. The Democrats at large can only do so much, and getting angry at them for not swaying the minds of the opposition is less productive than taking those calls and emails and sending them at the opposition itself.

Okay, rant over.

So let’s let him defend it.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care.  In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers.  This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

…

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Ever agreed with someone’s rationale but not their actions?

As far as I’m concerned, the decision of voting for or against a given bill should come down to two questions: 1) Can we realistically pass a better bill; 2) is doing nothing an option? In this case the answers are, currently, no and no. Look at the facts. With a fairly weak public option 39 Dems still voted no, and it only passed by five. Put out a bill that really sticks it to the insurance companies and it’s going to be a disaster.

Unfortunately, this is a case of “the best we could hope for”, but not “what we wanted”. We’re on the road to reform, but we’re not there yet. So I appreciate your integrity Denny, but this one might have been worth a yes vote.

Analysis later.

Apparently, I was giving people too much credit.

“Do you think it’s time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army officers, anybody enlisted? Because if I’m gonna be deployed in a foxhole, if I’m gonna be sitting in an outpost, I gotta know the guy next to me is not gonna wanna kill me,” [FOX's Brian] Kilmeade said.

Geraldo Rivera commendably pointed out that there are several million Muslims in America, and that many serve in the military and are highly valued. Another host, Gretchen Carlson, interrupted in order to point the blame at “political correctness.”

“Could it be that the military was also exercising political correctness, even though he had a poor performance report and even though he spoke openly about being a radical Muslim and had those supposed postings online?” she asked.

Allow me to an extend a rather fine “fuck you” to not only these two individuals, but everyone who follows their line of thought.

This is no doubt only a sample of the reaction, a free preview, as we’re at 6:11pm EST as I write this and the full sphere hasn’t had the chance to whip itself into a frenzy. I won’t be surprised if calls for outright banning of Muslims in the military isn’t endorsed by some from the truly crazy quarters.

I bring all this up because it’s going to become the next phase of the “9/12″ crusade, proving that these animals can’t be trusted and what have you. A rational person might point out that these are the same people who didn’t seem to think that the maniac who shot cops for fear of Obama taking his guns or the woman who was strapped with AK’s outside a FEMA camp were in any way evidence of a larger problem with right-wing radicals, but I think we all know what good that would do.

What will be the true test will be how Obama and Congress respond. If they pass new legislation, we’re in trouble. If they don’t, maybe there’s hope after all.

Partial credit goes to the flock of people who have been messaging me asking if I’ve seen this yet.

House leaders are moving forward with a bill that would provide health coverage to 36 million Americans who wouldn’t otherwise have it by expanding Medicaid, requiring everyone to purchase a plan and offering government subsidies to help low and moderate income families pay for premiums. Republicans have criticized the cost of the measure and taxes that would be imposed on high earning individuals and small businesses.

Plus, you know, the whole “taxes for abortions” thing.

Right now the entire debate, and I mean the entire debate, is about cost for the GOP. Lives saved? Quality of care? None of that’s particularly important. As I sit here I just saw an ad about opposing health care reform from a right-wing group, and it was entirely centered on the economy. Which is an interesting twist, really. It used to be all about how bad the care would be, but apparently that didn’t get any traction so now it’s economic issues.

It’s a sad time when people will vote against saving lives because it’s expensive, even after continually voting to continue a war regardless of cost.